Introduction

The Oratory of Favorinus is presented here in its entirety (with the qualification that the text will likely undergo minor alterations as it works toward a staged performance). It depicts the events that supposedly took place on May 10, 128 — the evening before Hadrian was destined to be honoured with the title of Father of the Country.

The action is set in the house of Statianus, who welcomes his distinguished Roman guests. They have all been invited (presumably from a list vetted by Hadrian) to witness the rhetorical genius of the celebrated hermaphrodite, Favorinus.

The Orator’s speech begins innocuously enough, with the traditional welcome of his audience as his friends. Yet his intention of speaking on the topic of the Favourite (and, more specifically, why Hadrian refuses to name Antinous as his chosen one despite the entire court’s anticipation of it) is quickly thwarted when Hadrian threatens to cut out his tongue if he goes any further. (Is Hadrian embarrassed? Scared? Uncertain? We are never told). Interestingly, Hadrian is quick to reference (and use as a rhetorical weapon) the hermaphrodite’s lack of testicles when he warns Favorinus against continuing on his chosen topic.

Favorinus appears to recover quickly, and offers to change course in a direction that is more amenable to Hadrian: the discussion of a distant period of Athenian history. And while Hadrian readily agrees, thinking that he is out of hot water, we soon discover that Favorinus has altered his planned speech only minimally, since it turns out that his “new” topic — a detailed discussion of the origin and history of the pederastic tradition as it came down to the Romans from archaic Greece – is (conveniently) exactly the same as his old. Thus he succeeds in publicly embarrassing Hadrian into recognizing the absurdity of keeping Antinous at a safe distance and not allowing him to be formally named the Favourite.

The fact that Favorinus’ tongue remains intact in the aftermath of these events suggests that Hadrian was quite moved by the speech, and indeed this is confirmed in Epistle 055 - Father of the Country. By the time Favorinus draws his conclusions, making the inevitable comparison between Timarchus and Antinous, it is too late for Hadrian to silence him. In all probability, Hadrian would not have even wanted to, as he (like the rest) was by that time already quite enthralled by what he was hearing.

It is noteworthy that in this particular text, Antinous is given only a single reactionary line before being taken from the room by Statianus. Also interesting (from the standpoint of the play’s production considerations when this text is mounted as a performance) is the rather casual (and, ultimately, unsatisfactory) way in which the text concludes. The drama, in effect, just seems to fizzle out: tight-lipped Hadrian storms away; Favorinus says a terse goodbye; and Statianus guides Antinous unceremoniously from the glare of the gawking guests – but not before urging them to stay and enjoy some of the food! While this is hardly a traditional ending, it nevertheless serves a higher dramatic purpose of creating multiple “cliff-hangers” – and we are forced to turn to the Epistles to find out what happens next. (Antinous’ immediate and personal reaction to the events depicted in the Oratory can be found in Epistle 054 - In the Wake of a Paradox.

Nevertheless, while “the frame” of the entire Oratory plays fast and loose with (modern) audience expectations about traditional storytelling conventions, it should be noted that the actual argument of Favorinus does indeed have a respectable beginning, middle and end: he introduces his topic; he launches into a cohesive story about the Athenian Assembly, develops and concludes it; and then he wraps up by tying it all back to his originally stated thesis with regard to “Hadrian’s Favourite Catamite,” Antinous.

The text has been divided into several sections, each of which is titled according its dominant subject matter. These divisions and their titles are not a part of the original, and would not be so distinguished in performance, where the play would unfold as a contiguous progression.